We Have Not Forgotten (1 Viewer)

It seems to me that the right-wing has forgotten how to be American and has traded their status as Americans for membership in a terrorist organization (MAGA); in so doing they have forfeited their right to call themselves Americans. The right-wing no longer respects the rule of law, the constitution, free speech, or basic human rights. They have chosen a path of blind obedience to a hateful racist who believes himself to be above the law. The right wing has forgotten what it means to be honorable, just, and forthright. They shame themselves, their families, in the eyes of the rest of the world, the country from which they came.

Many brave men and women served this nation well over the last one hundred fifty years, many of those dying to protect the freedom granted to us by the founding fathers in 1776. The right has decided to take a massive dump on the graves of those who died for this country while slapping those who still serve in the face at every turn. This is truly despicable and absolutely disgusting. During World War II our grandparents fought to stop the very same scum that is not sitting in the white house from conquering the globe. During that period, around 418,000 Americans military members and as many as 12,000 civilians died fighting to preserve freedom, justice, and liberty. They died fighting for what they believed was right. They paid in blood for the freedom we enjoyed until Trump got elected. Then all that changed. Because of the right wing, all that we accomplished as a nation is on the verge of being lost. The GOP will never lose the stench of the traitor that now permeates from every fiber of their being. That will never go away, and their dishonor will never be lifted.

I for one have not forgotten the sacrifices of those brave men and women fought to protect what we had. I am not alone. There are many real Americans, Americans who love their country more than their political party, who remember the sacrifices made on their behalf. Clearly, the right-wing has forgotten what this country stands for. Instead of standing up for their nation and helping their people expel a traitor, they embraced him, sold out their country, and are now literally a force of evil in the world. Our only hope for survival, as a nation, is to rise up and expel the right-wing from office and to make absolutely certain none of them ever hold any type of political office or professional licensure ever again.

Many people say that these horrors will never end, but I disagree. In 2027, the Democrats will retake the senate, and they will expel the traitors from office. I chose to place my faith in the many true Americans, who in fact, outnumber the MAGA terrorists, to do the right thing. I expect that all of the traitors, including, but not limited to, Musk, Trump, Hegseth, Bondi, Kennedy Jr., Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, and those who supported them, will wind up paying a very high price for what they have done. When it is all over, and the dust has settled, those who participated in helping MAGA ruin the county will be permanently dishonored and will go down in history as the enemies of all mankind. They will be remembered the same way Hitler is remembered and with as much disdain, hate, and mockery. History will record them as the scum they are. If they get any mercy at all, it will be only from their creator. They will be treated as Judas Iscariot has been treated by history because, in a very real sense, they are as treacherous as Judas was.

For those of you who are as disgusted by what is happening in the country as I am, fear not, this country has moved forward and back from good to evil and back for the last 200 years. We will swing back into the light again and the MAGA terrorist faction will fade into dust. Those who have offended the true people of the United States will be held accountable. Peace and justice will be restored. The right will be consigned to the minority for all eternity and all of those among them who attacked this county will pay for what they have done.

It's time for all true Americans to remember who they are and what it means to be an American to stand up against the tyranny of the right. We have to rise past our petty differences, band together under one banner, to rescue America from the threat of the MAGA menace and the orange traitor who leads them. We need to remember that MAGA declared war on America. They declared war on our freedom, on the law, and on the very institutions that provide us with both law and freedom. They've declared war on us, and we must stand our ground and defend ourselves. Just as Sampson triumphed over the philistines using the jawbone of an ass, so shall we overcome the pestilence that is MAGA.

God Bless America.

We have not forgotten.

CHT

 

[The Mark]

If it's going to be a national system, the federal government would have to own it, wouldn't it? So how many "hospitals and other care facilities" are there in all 50 states that would have to be bought from the now private owners, at what cost? How many non-medical management people would have to be employed to oversee the present management, that is, how many new government watchdogs?

You assume we would have to buy them. That is not necessarily required. We could take them. Not saying that would be popular among the people who currently own them, but we COULD do it if we wanted to badly enough.
The details are something we would have to work out, carefully, and I certainly have no way of knowing all the issues that would have to be overcome.

And how many government employees in "the hospitals and other care facilities" would that add to the millions we already have?

A lot. Necessary though. For-profit entities cannot be trusted with our health care.

 

[The Mark]

If it's going to be a national system, the federal government would have to own it, wouldn't it? So how many "hospitals and other care facilities" are there in all 50 states that would have to be bought from the now private owners, at what cost? How many non-medical management people would have to be employed to oversee the present management, that is, how many new government watchdogs?
And how many government employees in "the hospitals and other care facilities" would that add to the millions we already have?

You assume we would have to buy them. That is not necessarily required. We could take them. Not saying that would be popular among the people who currently own them, but we COULD do it if we wanted to badly enough.
The details are something we would have to work out, carefully, and I certainly have no way of knowing all the issues that would have to be overcome.

A lot. Necessary though. For-profit entities cannot be trusted with our health care.

I was thinking about this exchange while taking a shower.
I'm often partially distracted, but not when taking a shower.

My thinking on this starts from a concept of "least harm, most good"

When it comes to health care, my idea of optimal is maximum possible number of people having the maximum possible health. Since humans, there is little chance of reaching that goal, but it remains the goal.

In that context, when to the best of my understanding I examine the past and current health care situation in the USA, I rapidly see multiple issues that are caused directly or indirectly by organizations that want or need to make profits.
Everything from the food industry pushing unhealthy options that are more profitable, to health insurance companies denying necessary care, to care providers charging prices ranging from somewhat to significantly higher than the cost to them.

The core trend I see here is that these organizations all want or need to make profits, and as a result, over the years, the overall results are getting worse, and the costs are getting higher. Individual results may be excellent, but only if you can kinda afford it, and many people cannot.


Since I see the need for profit as the core flaw in this system, my initial thought, years ago, was to regulate the industry so that it was more profitable for them to avoid behavior that caused more harm. But as I see years pass and things just get worse, I have reached the conclusion that we literally cannot trust these key services to organizations that need to make a profit. There is too much incentive to do things that will decrease the outcomes.

So I think we have to seriously consider either requiring that health care facilities and providers cannot be for-profit, or literally confiscate that entire industry and have managers far more directly answerable to the people run it.

Edit: To be very clear, I do not agree with the idea that the government running something is worse than a private company doing so. I think we have for too long gone that route, and while it can work for a time, in the long run, the need to make a profit negatively impacts the services provided. In some cases, the benefits of a profit motive may offset the negatives of it, but in many key areas, I think they do not.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

You assume we would have to buy them. That is not necessarily required. We could take them. Not saying that would be popular among the people who currently own them, but we COULD do it if we wanted to badly enough.

I suppose we could, if we wanted to start a revolution. The people of this country including those on the left, would not tolerate a system in which one of the largest sectors of the economy could be seized.

A lot. Necessary though. For-profit entities cannot be trusted with our health care.

Close, but no cigar. The correct statement is that Progressives cannot be trusted with any decisions in our country.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

In some cases, the benefits of a profit motive may offset the negatives of it, but in many key areas, I think they do not.

And down that road lies Socialism.

 

[The Mark]

And down that road lies Socialism.

We already have socialism in various places, where we decided it was the best solution.

I see no reason why we can't use some version of it to prevent a motive for profit from negatively impacting health outcomes.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

I see no reason why we can't use some version of it to prevent a motive for profit from negatively impacting health outcomes.

The simple reason is that innovation in medical care delivery would be stifled to a very marked degree. The complex reasons are involved in having a single entity involved in the management of an enterprise that big and that crucial. Maybe that's why no nation has ever tried it for a population bigger than the U.K., where it doesn't function without a large, for profit medical establishment along side of it.

 

[The Mark]

The simple reason is that innovation in medical care delivery would be stifled to a very marked degree. The complex reasons are involved in having a single entity involved in the management of an enterprise that big and that crucial. Maybe that's why no nation has ever tried it for a population bigger than the U.K., where it doesn't function without a large, for profit medical establishment along side of it.

You say these things as if they are proven fact.
Can you actually prove them?

Is there some reason a not-for-profit health care delivery organization cannot innovate? Or put out open contracts to encourage innovation by for-profit companies?

I'm not saying it has to be a single entity, just that the care providers have to be non-profit.

I question whether the U.K.'s usage of a for-profit system alongside the publicly funded one is actually a net positive.


I can see a reasonable niche where for-profit medical providers offer un-necessary care services, such as perhaps cosmetic surgery (if not for reconstruction, etc.).
But in my mind, if care is necessary, we should not allow a profit motive to weigh in on it's application.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Is there some reason a not-for-profit health care delivery organization cannot innovate? Or put out open contracts to encourage innovation by for-profit companies?

The best source of information for innovation needed, and often for answers to the need, are the people who work with the issues every day. They are motivated by a few factors (easing their work load, impressing their superiors, etc.) and one of them is to improve profitability. I don't believe the level of initiative for innovation in a socialized industry of millions of people would as high as it is in hundreds of thousands of enterprises all seeking to grow and improve profits.

I'm not saying it has to be a single entity, just that the care providers have to be non-profit.

What, then, is the incentive for the investment of many millions of dollars and the risk of losing it all thru an act of carelessness or incompetence?

I question whether the U.K.'s usage of a for-profit system alongside the publicly funded one is actually a net positive.

It may be the only thing that makes people continue to tolerate the delays and inefficiencies of the NHS. Those who can afford to "go private" do so if they feel their need is greater than the NHS' ability to meet it.

But in my mind, if care is necessary, we should not allow a profit motive to weigh in on it's application.

I have two positions that I believe rule out a system such as you propose. The first is that no country has ever even attempted to make such a system work in an environment like the U.S, (population, 50 separate states, land area, etc.) and I don't believe it can be done at least as successfully as the private system. The second is that Socialism has never worked in any country and, while systems such as Social Security and Medicare may be modified socialist programs, they are (in the simplest terms) merely the keeping of records and distribution of money; a clerical function.

There may be legislation needed to control the worst abuses or to enable the most essential services, but even those should be approached very carefully.

 

[The Mark]

What, then, is the incentive for the investment of many millions of dollars and the risk of losing it all thru an act of carelessness or incompetence?

We don't have that, currently.
At least in multiple cases, the U.S. government covers the risky investment for a company, and that company then makes profit on the results. It's why the argument for allowing the government to negotiate drug prices is strong - we funded that research, and now they're making a profit by deciding what the prices we pay are.

It may be the only thing that makes people continue to tolerate the delays and inefficiencies of the NHS. Those who can afford to "go private" do so if they feel their need is greater than the NHS' ability to meet it.

I am not convinced that delays are anywhere near the issue they are presented as by opponents of universal health care systems.

I have two positions that I believe rule out a system such as you propose. The first is that no country has ever even attempted to make such a system work in an environment like the U.S, (population, 50 separate states, land area, etc.) and I don't believe it can be done at least as successfully as the private system. The second is that Socialism has never worked in any country and, while systems such as Social Security and Medicare may be modified socialist programs, they are (in the simplest terms) merely the keeping of records and distribution of money; a clerical function.

Humans don't progress by only doing things we've done before.
I disagree with your contention that socialism has never worked, it's all over the globe in various forms, working currently.
Social programs like Social Security and Medicare are examples of this.
I suppose we could get into a definition argument about what precisely counts as real socialism, but I think it's more of a vague and broad category that covers a lot of things. A category that I am including social security and Medicare in.

There may be legislation needed to control the worst abuses or to enable the most essential services, but even those should be approached very carefully.

For a long time now, we've been carefully approaching such things, worried about cutting into profits.
The result has been cutting into the health and wellbeing of the people.
I think we need to err the other way.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

At least in multiple cases, the U.S. government covers the risky investment for a company, and that company then makes profit on the results

I'm not aware of that being done for hospitals. I'm aware of two major hospital systems here. One was built with bonds issued by a board that leases the hospital to a not-for-profit organization. The other was built with private money donated to a foundation that operates not-for-profit hospitals. Neither was built with state or federal money. In one case, profits are reinvested in the hospital to carry out innovation. In the other the same is true but they also rely heavily on donations to the foundation.
Your comment reads as though pharmaceutical companies are either built by the government, or have research funded by the government. As I read articles on the subject, government usually funds early research through grants to research institutions, universities, etc. Later development is carried out mostly by pharmaceutical companies. Prices, however, are a different subject.

I am not convinced that delays are anywhere near the issue they are presented as by opponents of universal health care systems.

The latest Referral to Treatment (RTT) figures for January 2025 show:

• The waiting list stood at 7.40 million cases, consisting of approximately 6.24 million individual patients waiting for treatment
• Around 3.02 million of these patients have been waiting over 18 weeks;
• Approximately 194,000 of these patients have been waiting over a year for treatment – a decrease from around 199,000 the previous month (January 2025).
• A median waiting time for patients waiting to start treatment was 14.2 weeks – a significant increase from the pre-COVID median wait of 7.5 weeks in February 2020.

NHS backlog data analysis

Analysis of monthly data releases by NHS England to highlight the huge pressures being placed on backlogs across the NHS - including operations data, cancer waiting list GP referrals and A&E waiting times.

www.bma.org.uk

I disagree with your contention that socialism has never worked, it's all over the globe in various forms, working currently.
Social programs like Social Security and Medicare are examples of this.

I've dealt with them previously. As I said, both are clerical functions, neither being productive.

For a long time now, we've been carefully approaching such things, worried about cutting into profits.

A major denier of treatment is the government. Fortunately, the Right to Try Act is a step in the right direction.

 

[The Mark]

I'm not aware of that being done for hospitals. I'm aware of two major hospital systems here. One was built with bonds issued by a board that leases the hospital to a not-for-profit organization. The other was built with private money donated to a foundation that operates not-for-profit hospitals. Neither was built with state or federal money. In one case, profits are reinvested in the hospital to carry out innovation. In the other the same is true but they also rely heavily on donations to the foundation.
Your comment reads as though pharmaceutical companies are either built by the government, or have research funded by the government. As I read articles on the subject, government usually funds early research through grants to research institutions, universities, etc. Later development is carried out mostly by pharmaceutical companies. Prices, however, are a different subject.

Pharmaceutical companies have research funded by the government. I do not know where or if that cuts off, but I do know they are screwing us over on drug prices.

And of course there was that whole thing where at least one of them essentially created the opioid abuse crisis, pretty much purely for profit. That company still exists. And so far as I know the people who made those decisions are not in jail.

I think there needs to be government-funded research to at the very least find the UNprofitable solutions or solutions that are cheaper than existing options, because for damned sure private companies won't.

The latest Referral to Treatment (RTT) figures for January 2025 show:

• The waiting list stood at 7.40 million cases, consisting of approximately 6.24 million individual patients waiting for treatment
• Around 3.02 million of these patients have been waiting over 18 weeks;
• Approximately 194,000 of these patients have been waiting over a year for treatment – a decrease from around 199,000 the previous month (January 2025).
• A median waiting time for patients waiting to start treatment was 14.2 weeks – a significant increase from the pre-COVID median wait of 7.5 weeks in February 2020.

NHS backlog data analysis

Analysis of monthly data releases by NHS England to highlight the huge pressures being placed on backlogs across the NHS - including operations data, cancer waiting list GP referrals and A&E waiting times.

www.bma.org.uk

Sounds like they need to fund more supply. But to do that they'll have to raise taxes on the rich.

I've dealt with them previously. As I said, both are clerical functions, neither being productive.

Social Security and Medicare are supposed to be dependable and a sure thing.
Project 2025 is currently trying to break that. DoGE is seemingly doing it's job in that regard, sadly. Unless stopped. But there will still be some damage to repair.

A major denier of treatment is the government. Fortunately, the Right to Try Act is a step in the right direction.

That's a bit of a gray/vague area - if there's a treatment that hasn't been proven yet, it would be really sketchy for the government to just agree it's OK. Even worse if there is a treatment they know doesn't work but someone wants it anyway.

Yet, if there's a new treatment and someone is going to die anyway, seems like letting them try is reasonable? Unless of course they have reason to suspect it will make things worse.

This one needs careful case by case examination, I would think.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

I do know they are screwing us over on drug prices.

Do you? Please explain to us the global pricing strategy for a new pharmaceutical. Don't forget to include countries in which the government controls prices. Assume $1 billion development and approval costs, and a 12 year product life during which the company must recover it's cost plus enough profit to fund another $1 billion project.

 

[The Mark]

Do you? Please explain to us the global pricing strategy for a new pharmaceutical. Don't forget to include countries in which the government controls prices. Assume $1 billion development and approval costs, and a 12 year product life during which the company must recover it's cost plus enough profit to fund another $1 billion project.

I have no idea, frankly.
but we apparently paid for some or all of their research costs, and we pay higher prices for the results as well. Why is this the case?
Do we have data showing they didn't recover their cost plus a profit?

Edit: Or for that matter, how much of a profit they made, and how much was invested in research?

Edit 2: Because I'll be frank, I think stock buy backs should probably be illegal except in very strictly limited cases.